Indeed; a purported Crusade is presented here, any victor(s) is/are suggested, we debate.

Any candidate?

The Third Crusade 1189-1192 springs to mind immediately. In achieveing its intended initial goals, that of recapturing Jerusalem as lost to Saladin in 1187 and restopring the Kingdom of Jerusalem it clearly failed.

Yet the resultant effect of the crusade and the actions of its participants permitted a the continued Latin presence along the coast for another century or so, truncated though it was. Something unlikely to have occurred without it.

Likewise the the financial burden of warfare from 1187-1192 almost bankrupted Saladin, and the stress and pressure of command may very well have contributed to his ill health and eventual death in 1193. Leading to a protracted succession dispute amongts his heirs.

Is the Third Crusade a victory because it achieves what it never intended to that may have been more beneficial in the end, or a loss because its primary goals were not met? Or is it just some sort of draw?

The Third Crusade 1189-1192 springs to mind immediately. In achieveing its intended initial goals, that of recapturing Jerusalem as lost to Saladin in 1187 and restopring the Kingdom of Jerusalem it clearly failed.

Yet the resultant effect of the crusade and the actions of its participants permitted a the continued Latin presence along the coast for another century or so, truncated though it was. Something unlikely to have occurred without it.

Likewise the the financial burden of warfare from 1187-1192 almost bankrupted Saladin, and the stress and pressure of command may very well have contributed to his ill health and eventual death in 1193. Leading to a protracted succession dispute amongts his heirs.

Is the Third Crusade a victory because it achieves what it never intended to that may have been more beneficial in the end, or a loss because its primary goals were not met? Or is it just some sort of draw?

Prima fascie, it sounds as mere loser's talk.

Analogous to the "we were not defeated because there were more casualties on their side" or "we were crushed but how incredibly valuable lessons were learned" kind of stuff.

A really great amount of really relevant hard evidence would be required to at the very least seriously discuss any such crystal clearly apologetic & Panglossian hypotheses.

Apologetic & Panglossian for the obvious military losers, of course.

Would you like to share with us any such evidence you may be aware of?

Analogous to the "we were not defeated because there were more casualties on their side" or "we were crushed but how incredibly valuable lessons were learned" kind of stuff.

A really great amount of really relevant hard evidence would be required to at the very least seriously discuss any such crystal clearly apologetic & Panglossian hypotheses.

Apologetic & Panglossian for the obvious military losers, of course.

Would you like to share with us any such evidence you may be aware of?

...only so much...a full account will have to wait for either the completion of my PhD thesis or for certain Professors to publish a dedicated monogrpah on the matter...all of which is currently in production. I have no desire to screw myself on plagarising my won work before submission, that would be shooting myself in my foot.

so one aspect to consider....

The army of the Third Crusade, from the arrival of Richard I and Phillip II in 1191, win all major engagements and sieges in the campaign. Cyprus, siege of Acre, Battle of Arsuf, Darum, Caravan raid, Battle of Jaffa. Saladin is repeatedly beaten, though never destroyed. Even the two seperate marches to Jerusalem conducted by Richard I are not defeated though any military determined engagement, but through logistical problems, weather and morale. The Crusaders keep meeting regular military success, yet are incapable of achieveing their primary goal and objective.

...only so much...a full account will have to wait for either the completion of my PhD thesis or for certain Professors to publish a dedicated monogrpah on the matter...all of which is currently in production. I have no desire to screw myself on plagarising my won work before submission, that would be shooting myself in my foot.

so one aspect to consider....

The army of the Third Crusade, from the arrival of Richard I and Phillip II in 1191, win all major engagements and sieges in the campaign. Cyprus, siege of Acre, Battle of Arsuf, Darum, Caravan raid, Battle of Jaffa. Saladin is repeatedly beaten, though never destroyed. Even the two seperate marches to Jerusalem conducted by Richard I are not defeated though any military determined engagement, but through logistical problems, weather and morale. The Crusaders keep meeting regular military success, yet are incapable of achieveing their primary goal and objective.

In spite of some victories and their well-attested brutality the Crusaders were defeated at Ascalon; period.
One single defeat was enough for the whole expedition to fail.
In spite of all their efforts Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands, the Crusader states were compressed in a narrow fortified coastal strip, and immense rich territories remained under the undisputed rule of Salah ad-Din and his dynasty.
The Emperor Barbarossa futilely died together with thousands of Crusaders, the French king wisely deserted, and the penniless Richard was eventually captured for years in his way home due to a previous political assassination.

But well, the very Christian (Roman) Cyprus was treacherously conquered and plundered by the Crusaders...

No wonder the next Crusade was required barely six years after such a miserable failure of the Crusade of the Kings.

Rest assured that challenging the strength of your conviction is well beyond any of my goals here.

Again, if you would like us to continue discussing virtually anything about the fascinating issue of the centuries-long Reconquista a brand new ad hoc thread would be an absolute requirement, as it is only tangentially related to the OP here.

A topic to interpret sentences would also come in hand but since patience is something that the more one uses the more one gets and since I'm convinced that you honestly were not able to interpret the sentence:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yōḥānān
However the Reconquista in the designated period was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit.

You see when I wrote " the Reconquista in the designated period" I'm circumscribing the rest of the sentence to a certain period of time which in this case is the period of the Crusades. You got this part? You understand that I'm not speaking of the entire period of the reconquista but only that which coincides with the Crusades? So when I write "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit" this statement is limited chronologicaly by the first so that this does not refer to the entire period of the Reconquista.
I'm sure this is enough but just in case you haven't understand and because it would be a waste of time to dwell on such subject longer I will leave another approach.
A simple way to understand the meaning is like this: when you read "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit" you ask what "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit"? The answer is "the Reconquista in the designated period". And if you ask "what was the designated period?" the answer is obviously the period of the Crusades which is the period designated in this topic. This exercise might help you understand the meaning of the sentence and situate it correctly in time.

A topic to interpret sentences would also come in hand but since patience is something that the more one uses the more one gets and since I'm convinced that you honestly were not able to interpret the sentence:

You see when I wrote " the Reconquista in the designated period" I'm circumscribing the rest of the sentence to a certain period of time which in this case is the period of the Crusades. You got this part? You understand that I'm not speaking of the entire period of the reconquista but only that which coincides with the Crusades? So when I write "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit" this statement is limited chronologicaly by the first so that this does not refer to the entire period of the Reconquista.
I'm sure this is enough but just in case you haven't understand and because it would be a waste of time to dwell on such subject longer I will leave another approach.
A simple way to understand the meaning is like this: when you read "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit" you ask what "was sometimes an act of Crusade and for the rest of the time within the spirit"? The answer is "the Reconquista in the designated period". And if you ask "what was the designated period?" the answer is obviously the period of the Crusades which is the period designated in this topic. This exercise might help you understand the meaning of the sentence and situate it correctly in time.

Just if you ask me, if anyone may like to debate about the Reconquista, IMHO another ad hoc thread would be an absolute requirement.

Lets get this straight, this topic is about the Crusades and since several decisive battles of the Reconquista were acts of Crusade and during the period of the Crusades the Reconquista was strongly influenced by it, the Reconquista belongs here and it is licit to discuss it. Now you might want to remove this aspect of the Crusades since it contradicts your veredict that the Crusades were a complete failure. But that is your bias and your problem. The only reason I'm not discussing any longer is because I already made my case.

And will repeat it, the Crusades in the long term were a failure in the east and a success in the west.

Lets get this straight, this topic is about the Crusades and since several decisive battles of the Reconquista were acts of Crusade and during the period of the Crusades the Reconquista was strongly influenced by it, the Reconquista belongs here and it is licit to discuss it. Now you might want to remove this aspect of the Crusades since it contradicts your veredict that the Crusades were a complete failure. But that is your bias and your problem. The only reason I'm not discussing any longer is because I already made my case.

And will repeat it, the Crusades in the long term were a failure in the east and a success in the west.

OK, let's get this straight, I give up; I couldn't care any less if you can't understand why & where should one discuss anything.

The case you have made here is just an unqualified sweeping generalization (ostensibly deliberate) just a half-truth, more misleading than useful.
And your case would not be any less misleadingly apologetic wishful thinking just for being presented here or in any other thread, in Historum or elsewhere, irrespectively of any "veredict".

The Crusades as regularly understood by the vast majority of regular mortals (the "traditionalist" approach) as a whole were a failure, as all failed to recapture Jerusalem, except the First for some 88 years (hardly any insignificant period) and the Sixth (under Frederik II, but just for 15 years, still not such a short period either).

The centuries-long Reconquista was on the long run on strict military terms a significant success.
It included some late minor elements around the XII century of something what could be considered as a Crusade by some standards.
Even for the local standards not all these local "Crusades" were equally successful.
In particular for the critical battle of Navas de Tolosa 1212, the bulk of the always minoritarian Crusade element was actually absent at the battle itself; hardly any "success" even by the most bizarre standard.

At the risk of overstating the obvious ad infinitum, the success of whatever else of this Universe may be understood under even the most far-fetched criteria as any "Crusade" (from D-day to the control of tobacco) either "Western" or "Eastern" could only be determined for each specific case on an absolutely specific basis, naturally including the specific goals of each and any "Crusade".

...only so much...a full account will have to wait for either the completion of my PhD thesis or for certain Professors to publish a dedicated monogrpah on the matter...all of which is currently in production. I have no desire to screw myself on plagarising my won work before submission, that would be shooting myself in my foot.

so one aspect to consider....

The army of the Third Crusade, from the arrival of Richard I and Phillip II in 1191, win all major engagements and sieges in the campaign. Cyprus, siege of Acre, Battle of Arsuf, Darum, Caravan raid, Battle of Jaffa. Saladin is repeatedly beaten, though never destroyed. Even the two seperate marches to Jerusalem conducted by Richard I are not defeated though any military determined engagement, but through logistical problems, weather and morale. The Crusaders keep meeting regular military success, yet are incapable of achieveing their primary goal and objective.

I think the battles qualify to be considered a "Draw" but in terms of an overall valuation of the campaign, its obviously a failure......None of the battles were deceisive as Hattin, and their beach strongholds were lost after Memelukes consolidated power in Egypt.

In spite of some victories and their well-attested brutality the Crusaders were defeated at Ascalon; period.
One single defeat was enough for the whole expedition to fail.
In spite of all their efforts Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands, the Crusader states were compressed in a narrow fortified coastal strip, and immense rich territories remained under the undisputed rule of Salah ad-Din and his dynasty.
The Emperor Barbarossa futilely died together with thousands of Crusaders, the French king wisely deserted, and the penniless Richard was eventually captured for years in his way home due to a previous political assassination.

But well, the very Christian (Roman) Cyprus was treacherously conquered and plundered by the Crusaders...

No wonder the next Crusade was required barely six years after such a miserable failure of the Crusade of the Kings.

Im afriad I dont recall any specific action at Ascalon during the Third Crusade, during the Barons Crusade 1239-41 yes, but not the Third. As I recall Ascalon was successfully captured and repaired and then handed over as part of the negotiations of the Treaty of Jaffa.

Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands, but access for pilgrims to visit and worship was secured. As for the rich lands, well perhaps to an extent, though Im not so sure on how financially damaging being restrained to the coast was, if anything it became a much simpler matter, easier to defend and the 13th Century grew to be a considerably wealthy realm, more so than perhaps it had in the 12th.

The capture of Cyprus offered new possibilities, providing an ofshore bastion, one that would long outlast the mainland states.

Saladin despite early victories failed in his task of removing the Latin Presence from the region, and faced his own political and financial issues with his own men beginning to desert him.

Both sides failed in achieveing their objectives, both fough eachother to a standstill, neither could critically defeat the other, negotiation and treaty were the only way out.